06 May 2011

Take the Sam Harris challenge: Improve the Bible, Quran, and Book of Mormon in less than five minutes

The truth is that religion, as we speak of it (Islam, Christianity, Judaism), is based on the claim that God dictates certain books. He doesn't code software; he doesn't produce films; he doesn't score symphonies. He is an author. And this claim has achieved credibility because these works are so profound that they could not possibly have been written by human authors.

...

How difficult would it be to improve the Bible?

Anyone in this room could improve the supposedly inerrant text scientifically, historically, ethically, or spiritually in a moment.

OK, so let's try to improve the Bible. I'll start by suggesting that the following passage be deleted.

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

That's much better. A kind and loving God wouldn't tell us to kill our family and friends for disagreeing with us about religion.

What about the Quran? Could that be improved?

How about removing this verse?

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great. Quran 4:34

There. Now men can't claim it's OK to beat their wives for being disobedient. That's quite an improvement, I'd say.

And now for the Book of Mormon.

I nominate the following verses for removal.

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. 2 Nephi 5:21-23

These highlights really demonstrate the negative slant of the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible.

I hate this sort of thinking, especially from atheists.

Lets not stop at the Bible, and the ignorant lame assed interpretation of Sam Harris, lets paint Hitler and Stalin and Hiroshima with rosier colored glasses.

If God is the big bad Bogy man that propels idiots like Sam Harris to the forefront of the talk show circuit or You Tube for the sake of nothing more than making him and his ilk a bundle and giving purpose to more ignorance then fuck it. It is a bad joke.

You won't see Sam Harris and his wife sitting around trying to figure this shit out, you only see quasi intellectual xenophobia which subscribes to a knee jerk reaction to apostate Christendom.

You won't see these pricks debating the finer points of what is the soul, or hell.

They have an agenda that isn't any more informed or rational than the god they oppose out of pure ignorance.

They are boring and dull. Stupid. They want your money and they subscribe to the powerless. Boring. Stupid.

"People can love who they love, if each are consenting adults. Thou shalt not suffer a bigot who discriminates against sexuality, or race, or disability, or gender; he shall surely be shunned by the community, and taught better."

Aw gee, that's a shame,'cause we're not about to stop pointing out idiocy just because you made the mistake of basing your worldview on a book that is a mish-mash of ridiculous claims supposedly "inspired" by some divine god.

If God is the big bad Bogy man that propels idiots...

Um, no. See, what compels Mr. Harris, and me, to speak out against religion has nothing to do with a god we don't believe exists, but instead it's the adherents, like you, who are the problem. And, as more and more people see that your biblical assertions are nonsense, it becomes easier to understand why you are compelled to call us names and lash out as you do here. Too bad others are also seeing your nasty side, as it only makes you look even more silly, if that's possible.

It isn't intellectually honest to delete the writings you don't agree with or, most likely, don't understand. The problem isn't with believers it is with ignorance. If you educate people the abuse of the book will subside somewhat. This isn't really the agenda of the militant atheist. The agenda of the militant atheist is to destroy the beliefs or world view that isn't in agreement with their own.

The idea that a reasonable man can stand in front of an audience and with straight face claim intellectual honesty in this way is laughable to everyone but the tiny minority of militant atheists who buy his books.

[b]Annand[/b] - Daystar: this is no exercise in history revisionism; your comparisons to making a hagiography to Hitler are ridiculous.

[b]Daystar[/b] - Well there is the intellectual argument. I’m still waiting for the honest one.

[b]Annand[/b] - Can you improve the Bible, Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon in terms of a modern consensus of human rights and morality: the answer is yes.

[b]Daystar[/b] - No it isn’t. First of all morality is subjective and therefore irrelevant. There is no practical, logical, reasonable or sensible explanation for atheism beyond the most basic definition of the word itself. There are theist and there are atheist. The two are only at odds regarding each of their utopian world views, both of which are unconnected to the fundamental teachings of the Bible.

Deleting or censoring passages in either of the books mentioned is revisionism based upon xenophobia. It is myopic and folly. If the God of the Bible killed people for idolatry then that is what it should read.

[b]Annand[/b] - It is a common claim that said books are the source of good moral standards. This can only be done in one of three ways:

[b]Daystar[/b] - The revisionism is based upon the first and weakest of these. And morality, once again, is subjective and irrelevant.

[b]Annand[/b] - William Lane Craig himself was recently defending the killing of the Canaanites with a nigh simplistics "the adults deserved it; the babies went to heaven; what's the problem?" approach.

Cherry-picking is arguably the most ignorant approach, but can be the most compatible with modern ethics, depending on the cherry-picker in question.

[b]Daystar[/b] - Whoever William Lane Craig is should be notified that long after the Canaanites were killed Jesus said no one had ascended to heaven except himself, who had descended from heaven. You don’t waste your time arguing the morality of the issue you argue the reality of the text.

[b]Annand[/b] - Turning things around, your raucous accusations of "ignorance" on the part of atheists seems to presuppose the existence of souls and hell:

"You won't see these pricks debating the finer points of what is the soul, or hell."

[b]Ritchie[/b] - You're knee-deep in Emperor's Clothes territory here, to my mind. Souls presuppose dualism as true, and I will argue that dualism is unsupportable, through trite ('why is our brain bigger than that of a mouse?'), religious parallel ('why is the OT soul concomitant with the body, whereas only the NT soul is a separate dualistic Hellenized soul?') or research (neurology/parapsychology/etc.) argumentation.

[b]Daystar[/b] - Maybe it has something to do with the influence of the apostate Jews about the time of Alexander the Great when concept of the immortal soul began influence their thinking? I would say later the English word soul is an unhappy translation for both the Hebrew nephesh (ׁש) as well as the Greek psykhe (ψυχή) but I don’t care to debate it here, the point is that it doesn’t matter to an atheist, right?

[b]Ritchie[/b] - Do you simply maintain that because we do not agree with you and do not engage in presumptively-religion-as-true arguments that we must therefore be ignorant?

Who reading this wants to argue that the human brain is not the most magnificent and least understood device for processing information in the known universe? So maybe he's not a java developer. That's a pretty intolerant view. IMO

The only way any of us can even begin to put ourselves in a position to "improve on the bible" is to put GOD in a box first.

Even I have to admit I feel safer with him in there. Then I can just do what I want. Right?

I'd cut out almost everything but the book of Ruth. That is some nice protest literature for the value of women and 'foreigners'. Of course it was still written in that time when it was assumed women needed to marry and have babies to survive and non-Jews still had to become Jews. It was prolly pretty subversive.

Yeah, yeah, let's deal with the holy books and not with our daily lives. Besides, we aren't going anywhere. Were nothing. Sure, being nothing that is going to end up nothing would surely fix the mind in the right direction of self-praise and self-worship. Now I'm totally convince in nothingness.

Google Harun Yahya and you'll find out that being nothing is not something. Dull is nothing compared to being nothing. Keep up the good work Steve. There's absolutely nothing I can say to convince you of your own nothingness. Please think of me when you're on the death bed and contact me from your nothingness. That would surely destroy my faith in nothingness.

Millions are dying, being displaced, conquered, destroyed by the one nation suppossed to be under God. Women are being used up like garbage, children as filth and men as gods. Wake up from your dream world, where does all the dead pornstars and killers of humans came from? Men of God? Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot's brains are no different than the deluded theists that believed their god as part of this puny little world. Come atheists. Let's dance.

Anthony Flew changed his mind. Bit a little too late to escape from the second layer of delusion, ended up believing the Great Creator of VY Canis Majoris, was just a moongod believed to be worshipped by Muslims.

Seems @srizals is a little impatient... All you out there: Steve isn't sitting before the computer 24/7!

But back on @srizals: "holy books" are sadly everyday life even today. So we bother with 'em.

Btw, how comes believing everything equalls nothing (or to read your mind: not believing in the psychopatic Bible-god) to self-worshipping? You're not the first I hear this bullshit from, maybe the religious' mind is really this barking mad?

Now Harun Yahya, alias Adnan Oktar, alias Adnan Hoca alias Harun and Yahya (etc.) is a writer. He lives from writing and selling books. Oh, and the person is also creationist (= an idiot), conspiracy-theorist, and thinks buddhism worships gods (budhism is an atheistic religion).Actually I don't find anything about him and nothingness-theory, but his idea that the creation is the work of Satan is interresting.The end of the story is though, that his organisation (SRF) was signed illegal, closed down, and the persona was sentenced for 3 years prison.That's your hero: the turkish Kent Hovind.

Oh, and how to improve the Bible? Put the note on the cover:"Warining: This is a work of fiction. Do NOT take it literally!

Exposure warning: Exposure to contents for extended periods of time or during formative years in children may cause delusions, hallucinations, decrease cognitive and objective reasoning abilities, and in extreme cases, pathological disorders, hatred, bigotry, violence including but not limited to fanaticism, murder and genocide."

William Lane Craig himself was recently defending the killing of the Canaanites with a nigh simplistics "the adults deserved it; the babies went to heaven; what's the problem?" approach.

Cherry-picking is arguably the most ignorant approach, but can be the most compatible with modern ethics, depending on the cherry-picker in question.

Turning things around, your raucous accusations of "ignorance" on the part of atheists seems to presuppose the existence of souls and hell:

"You won't see these pricks debating the finer points of what is the soul, or hell."

...AND?

You're knee-deep in Emperor's Clothes territory here, to my mind. Souls presuppose dualism as true, and I will argue that dualism is unsupportable, through trite ('why is our brain bigger than that of a mouse?'), religious parallel ('why is the OT soul concomitant with the body, whereas only the NT soul is a separate dualistic Hellenized soul?') or research (neurology/parapsychology/etc.) argumentation.

Do you simply maintain that because we do not agree with you and do not engage in presumptively-religion-as-true arguments that we must therefore be ignorant?

Twilight, are you living in the twilight zone or something? Have you been missing the news for the couple of centuries? Let me give you some updates of this puny little earth we live on, ten of thousands of babies are still being aborted, by atheists and non-practising theists, the former being so fiercely in defending what began as a lie in the US. People are being killed and invaded by fancy scientific drones and bombs, not religiously made. And everyone has the tendency of annihilating one another not because of theists but atheists' favourite quote, 'survival of the fittest'.

Twilight, what's your opinion on abortion, same sex marriages and warmongering? Please share your worldviews. I need to know more the mind of practising atheist.

Doesn't it bother you that not one of the evolutionists ever countered Harun Yahya but merely rely on his character assassination, which is common when an idea or opinion is unbeatable?

Show me a fossil that proved evolution. And I'll show you living fossils that forgot to evolve and those which do not evolve to survive this very day. Isn't the theory of evolution always say that things evolve when the need arises?

Show me a research that proves something can exist from nothing without a creator. Show me a complex system without any controller. I'll wait for you here like a stone or like an audioslave.

Tell me why a killer that escapes earthly justice won't get punished ever. Tell me why criminals are being treated humanely while their victims suffered terribly in their hands.

2) What the *beep* you're talking about? What you told now simply has no connection to the previously said things!

3) Anyway:Abortion is not killing any more then scratching your skin! Fetuses are NOT humans, they're only a bunch of cells.

"Survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with atheism, or abortion.

What the heck is a "practicing atheist"? It sounds like a "practicing non-stampcollector".

Btw, my opinion about abortion is this: The question is about responsibility. Do you have the adequate circumstances to rise up a child, or not? If the answer is no, then you should take the responsibility to execute an abortus if the pregnancy (or its possibility) could not be avoided (as there is no 100% protection you know).

Now my opinion about samsex-marriage (this is again only MY opinion, as the atheists has nothing in common by term with the exception of not believing in gods): Everyone shall have the right of happiness, therefor gay marriege should be allowed to not violate the Basic Human Rights. On the other hand I'd suggest to have a new term instead of marriage, as no procriation is expected from that kind of relationship (so by statistics this can help the government to plan the future population).

Now my opinion on war comes: I don't think "war" can only be fought with guns! Anyway, I'm towards the opinion as "war should be the last resort of diplomacy".

About Harun Y.: So according to your opinion if you don't meet someone, or even don't experience a certain fenomena by yourself, you should have no opinion on the subject? I say this view of yours is BULLSHIT.

Go into a *beep* museum you ignorant prick. ALL fossils proves evolution.Now "living fossils" mean "things that have the look very similar to their more ancient form, but evolved to adapt to the current circumstances" (only this would be uncomfortable for everyday use). These circumstances can be things like changes in the atmosphere, pH, virulent agents etc.And no, evolution doesn't say that "things evolve when the need arise". I don't know where you took this statement, but it is false. If you want a deeper explanation on this, send me a PM in the SAB's forum, or just ask a professional around your area.

Hm, something coming from nothing - let me see: in particle-accelerators scientists noticed "relativistic particles", where from "nothing" a matter and an antimatter-equivalent particle appeares. Anyway, as I know you refer to the origin of the universe question, I have to tell you, it is entirelly possible that the universe (in whatever state) existed forever, and it never not-existed. Now as I know that you even referred here more specifically the Big Bang scientific theory, I have to tell you that the Big Bang doesn't necessarily means the start of the universe! The theory says before the Big Bang a singularity existed, what is "something" and not "nothing".

Complex system without controller: please define "complex", "system" and "controller". But assuming we all have some common sense, let's mention weather.

In your last paragraph you ask phylosophy behind the currently used legal system, and the same time you forget about things like results of psyhology, the legal ways of killing (like being a soldier, or sentencing capital punishment - what I personally reject, but in many countries/states is in use), or something so basic that why should a finite crime result in infinte punishment?Anyway, as you ask phylosophy, I refuse to react on the question. But I tell you 1 thing why this way is used: the question very much relates tothe question of capital punishment!

srizals said: " ...ten of thousands of babies are still being aborted, by atheists and non-practising theists, the former being so fiercely in defending what began as a lie in the US."

Citation SERIOUSLY needed. Also, a fetus is not a baby.

"People are being killed and invaded by fancy scientific drones and bombs, not religiously made."

Science makes the tools, those in charge decide how they are used, and those in charge tend to be deeply religious. I have a gun, the gun is a tool. Hypothetical situation: I kill someone. Is it the gun's fault that I killed someone or is it my fault?

"And everyone has the tendency of annihilating one another not because of theists but atheists' favourite quote, 'survival of the fittest'."

No...everyone has a tendency to kill each other over stupid things such as race, who they have sex with, resources, who's sky daddy is better, and about a thousand other factors including NOT GIVING A RAT'S BEHIND ABOUT ANYTHING INCLUDING THEMSELVES. It is not 'Survival of the Fittest' that is my favorite quote...mine is 'We are all connected. Biologically to each other, to the Earth chemically, and to the rest of the universe atomically.' Neil deGrasse Tyson

Survival of the Fittest isn't even the accurate evolutionary principle. It's Survival of the Adaptable.

Sorry, Twillight, and could you please avoid using intimidating words. Choice of words reflect intellect, don't you think so?

1. Abortion is self-culling and self-termination done only by the human species. No other species advocates this inhumane and in-creature practice except the intelligent man. For some theists, especially the ones that believed in singular and non-earthly bound god(s), created by them or exist around them, abortion is only allowed in a matter of life and death of the mother. It is never allowed for fun sake or due to lack of confidence and responsibility. Your point of view reflect self-centeredness and pure selfishness, sorry. Interestingly, you yourself are also a bunch of cells. In Islam, life is given to this bunch of cells when it is about four months old in the womb, which made it a person protected by law. Even before that, abortion is not allowed unless medical needs arise. Proof, it moves and responses to outside stimulus. Only living things do this. Dead cells do not. The innate desire to protect their offspring exists in all living things. Including those with deadly sharp teeth and claws. Although man does not have them, sometimes some can be deadlier and crueller than a hyena.2. Safe and legal sex is the better option. Sex is legal and safe between a husband and a wife. Beyond this, deadly viruses will always lurk around the corner, waiting. These viruses do not approve immoral and unnatural sex by humans. Proof, HIV, STD, higher cancer risk among gays and no passing of genes by same sex marriages, in short, it is only an awkwardness, unnatural and a waste of energy. The only focus is selfish fun. Nothing more.3. Same sex marriage is an act of suicide by a nation. It is again, only practised by smart man. Not animals and any other living things.4. Fossils debunk evolution. No fossils ever found showing they are undergoing a process of transformation. Living fossils debunk the theory of time forcing creatures to evolve in order to survive or perfected themselves against the elements.

Read up the Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya in order for us to continue discussing. They are available for free on the internet. You don’t have to buy them. The Orang-utan is still an Orang-utan. It is under threat of extinction. Why didn’t it evolve and save itself as a species? Extinction shouldn’t have taken place if evolution is the answer for survival. If some failed while others succeeded in changing themselves, why is this happening? What rules governing them? Aren't rules sign of intelligence? Weren’t they in control of themselves?5. Not everyone is a rocket scientist like you. I ask for a simple, down to earth sample. I ask again. If you do believe something can exist out of nothing without a creator which started the process or chain reaction in the first place, please give a simple example that I can use to speak to a 4-year-old about existence and life.6. Big bang is not the beginning? Says who?7. “A singularity existed”, do you mean God?8. The weather is a controlled complex system. It is a result of cause and effect. It doesn’t exist or come to be on its own. Let’s find something closely related to us, shall we?9. Capital punishment is an effective deterrent that keeps the criminal minds away from the not suspecting society, controlled with strict and rigid laws to safeguard it from malfunction. Only in Islam, the victims have a say in determining the punishment of criminals, forgiveness or enduring the same evil he had dared to inflict on other humans besides himself.

Twillight, water is ancient. It is said to exist immediately after the big bang which is the beginning of time and space as we know it in our still growing and limited knowledge. Only in the Koran mentioned about water as the essence of creation and life.

Coincidence? It was revealed about 1,400 years ago not by a scientist or a group of scientists with 21st century of scientific equipments and knowledge.

Anyway, what kind of atheism do you believe in? Were your parents atheists too? Thanks.

I) I see copying is still not your strong point. It is "twillight", not anything else (even at the beggining of sentences if I may ask, but in the middle of a sentence without doubt!).

II) In your internet-program you have some kind of special character-restriction, or why you do double-posts?

III)1. Actually many species use even more morbid way of "abortion". For example freshly hatched spiders eat each others. Kanguroos if chased hard throw away their babies to leave them behind for predators to be able to escape.On the other hand abortion can be VERY humane in the human species, as for example one more child can mean the whole family will starve to death. And this example is just from the point of the individual. I mean: did you hear about OVERPOPULATION?So abortion from a SECULAR point of view is not at all for "fun". Maybe you should read the answers people give to you!

2. I already told you: there is no 100% security. Also plz do not forget that for example catholics FORBID safe sex.

I start to see you're just copy-pasting preeching-material...

3. You are an ignorant prick. Homosexuality is very much common amongst animals. Ducks, cows - just to name the first 2 got into my mind. Not even start to explain sex-changing, hermafrodites, asexual reproduction...

Now I'm sure you're just copy-pasting preeching-material.How about next time READ THE DAMN ANSWERS, and have some own toughts? I already gave answer to #4.

If you want to know what is the theory of evolution and how it works from the basics, I have to tell you, this is not the place you can have the info. I can suggest you some titles if you want to learn about the topic, but until you don't have even the most basic informations about this topic, please, leave me alone. To give you a hint: evolution is not about individuals. It is about descendency, so it is about groups. Compare your darn fossils (count in your own skeleton) you lazy one.

5. I gave an easy example. If you don't understand the topic you want to discuss, then don't try to pose on it!

6. Says those who made up the theory.

7. No. I mean a singularity.

8. EVERYTHING is a cause and effect. But it doesn't mean it has a sentient controller. As I said: I hope we all have common sense. Seems you do not have though.

9. capital punishment do not keep anyone away from anything. It is not effective.

Quran? The same shit that says sun orbits the flat earth?

You still not listen: there are no "kinds of atheism" for the same reason there are not wayS to not collect stamps.My grandparents are religious, my parents are secular, and I'm atheistic. You want to date me or what?

@ twillight and srizals: While you guys are discussing abortion, don't overlook the fact that there are more "spontaneous" abortions than "induced". Assuming god is responsible for the spontaneous ones (he *is* omnipotent, after all), that makes him the greatest abortionist of all time. Just saying...Steve

Twillight said:"...the God of the Bible gave exact details to his followers how to execute abortion the proper way in Numbers 5."

Help me out here... Numbers 5 looks to me like a magical technique for a jealous husband to detect his wife's extra-marital sexual activity, with the help of the priest and the lord, of course. Is the "bitter water that causeth the curse" meant to be an abortifacient?I'm on the steep part of the biblical interpretation learning curve! ;-)Steve Weeks

@SteveYes, it is magical ceremony, but let's check what it is supposed to do.

What happens is, that the jealous husband brings his wife to the priest, who makes her drink "bitter water". The result can be, according to the story:- if the woman did not break the covenant: Num.5.28 "And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed."The most descriptive here is the part "and shall conceive seed".- So, when it says in case the woman broke the covenant: Num.5.27: "if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people."we see two things happening 1) "her belly shall swell" - this means instant abortion (in the hungarian translation it is even more clear as instead of "belly" the word "womb" is used) 2) "her thigh shall rot" - this means she won't be able to "conceive seed" (= be pregnant) anymore.

Fragged mind, check out Roe vs. Wade. Can something based on lies survived? The answer is yes. twillight is a manisfestation of them. For them, a fetus is never a baby as long as it stays in the womb since their definition of right and wrong is not in hard solid writings and based on conscious. Their morality is purely scientific. They make things up as they move along. Manipulating facts to suit their needs. People that think an abortion is just like a scratch on the skin are liars. Look up the YouTube on abortion. It's gruesome. Be forewarned. Some people never witnessed a birth of a baby or sensing a moving baby in the womb by their hands separated only by layers of skin and tissues. How a baby kicks and shows his or her presence to the outside world, responding to voice and touch. For some, sex has no relationship with responsibility. For them, sex is just for selfish fun, nothing more, maybe much lesser. This is the problem with adjustable morality.http://www.unbornintheusa.org/pages/P_roe.htmhttp://www.leaderu.com/focus/30yearsroevwade.htmlReversing Roe: The Norma McCorvey Story (1 of 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQzdMv6nW4o

1. We acquire knowledge from others. It is known as shared knowledge. If it in tandem with our conscience and way of thinking, it becomes accepted knowledge. It is how you yourself come to being. So don't act like a pompous smartie pants, Mr. Sponge Bob.

2. Have you ever raised cows and ducks to claim homosexuality is common among them? Did you deliberately deprive them of opposite sex?

3. Since you cannot provide any other examples about how nothingness can produce existence, I have to accept it. Now explain to me how it became living, breathing, growing decision makers.

4. You said the Koran says the sun orbits the flat earth, prove it. I read and study the Koran on daily basis with short interval of times. Be forewarned.

Your logic is similar to the likes that said God exists in them or they are a part of God since they were created by God.

Read up the term or definition of abortion. How could you even think logically that God is the greatest abortionist of all? Are you saying that men do not sin and error since they are programmed by God like brainless Zombies without conscience? Are you one of them? Do you honestly think that we are ill-equipped to deal with life?

Skanksta, denial is your weapon against the truth as you have so profoundly labelled the theists. It changes nothing. Back it up with something, at least.

Harun Yahya is not alone. There are many more Creationists as you put it throughout the World. Some know the True God. Others still considered men, animals, things as god(s). Hope they can realize how magnificent the biggest star known to man up to now. An earthly god(s) would just be a zarrah or an atom or smaller than it. How great an earthly god(s) can be?

Btw, abortion is allowed until the fetus grows a nerval system (I think the end of the first trimester), not until it is in the womb. See: no brain - no consciousness.A question here: would you force the woman give birth to a brainless child? That is a known birth-defect, not at all endangering the mother who bears the embrio. Would you (at least try) keep that THING "alive" for decades?If something is scientific it is: a) based on reason b) replicable c) unchanging.

Go into a slaughterhouse. It is gruesome (heck, making youghurt is gruesome! Not to mention fertilisaing ground, repairing sewersystems...). But our body requires eating delicious flesh!And to be honest, the birth of a baby is gruesome. Anyone see it with own eyes can tell this.

The problem with unadjastable moral for example is this: let's say there is the rule do not kill. But when someone comes with an army it is most stupid to not fight back!

2. I and many did rise them, and noticed that behaviour. But the list goes forever, like dolphins, dogs, rabbits (heck, rabbits try to fuck almost anything with a hole) ... And again: there are things what complicate the juding of sexual attraction as mentioned above: bisexuality, sexchanging, hermaphroditism, asexual reproductions ...On your other question: in cases of ducks and dolphins from the mentioned examples no, opposite sex were present. Also note that in natural circumstances samesex groups can appear.

3. I maybe could, but I'm not willing. And you still not understand the example.Anyway, if we take things on a larger scales, take this hypothesis:- at the very beggining there was nothing. Then relativistic particles appeared. As antimatter particles were more unstable, the amount of matter grew. By time we reach the moment of the BigBang, when the current state of the (our) universe came to be. The energy-matter when expanded cooled down, and with it appeared in more organised forms according to the laws of nature. Things continued this way, until at a certain time on Earth (too) some (or at least one) self-replicating molecule (most probably RNA) appeared and started to replicate itself. Every moment until that time, at that moment, and after that time was of course drived by the forces of nature: the kind of the particles, their position, the forces between them determined what will unavoidably happen. We call things containing the above mentioned selfrepicating molecules (on Earth according to our knowledge these can be: DNA, RNA, proteins) living things. These went on selfreplicating without any consciousness, and those offsrpings remained which could fit to the sorroundings. This continued for billions of years already until now, and will continue here, and probably elsewhere too (and if we turn really lucky we can be at that elsewhere too). If you ask consciousness at this point, let me point out that with more complex systems more complex forces arise. Consciousness as we commonly understand it is the result of the central nervous system, more exactly the brain. If you ask humans and animals, I have to tell you: there is only 1 major distinction in my opinion, and that is a minor easy difference in the way of thinking: humans can set appart the object and its attributes in the mind.

Now you asked the next question from Steve, but let me answer too: I have no knowledge about your idea of "God", therefor by your definition I AM "ill-equipped to deal with life". Or your god is evil. Or your god simply doesn't exist.

"No other species advocates this inhumane and in-creature practice except the intelligent man."

Very well put and I agree. What follows from this statement is that anti-abortionists are idiots, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Harun Yahya's "attack" on the theory of evolution has been discredited by numerous scientists, such as Richard Dawkins and P. Myers. He is also credited with the statement that evolution is a feeble and perverted ideology "contradicted by the Quran", which is the "holy book" of Islam, a feeble, murderous and perverted ideology whose inane holy text mostly contradicts itself. Seeing as the Quran contradicts itself, then the fact that it contradicts the theory of evolution should not really matter much, even to the believers.

His expertise in zoology is questionable, not only because he has no credentials in that field (i.e. is a charlatan) but also because he exhibits fundamental ignorance of the divisions of species. A high-school student exhibiting the same level of ignorance in biology would fail the course. This "expert on zoology" fails to differentiate between an eel and a sea snake.

I don't see how this is character assassination - the man's claims have been proven wrong, and he lacks not only the academic credentials relevant to the subject matter (he is an architect) but also basic knowledge of zoology. If there is no character, there is nothing to assassinate.

This does not matter to the god-idiots, of course. They now have a prettily colored and very well illustrated "Atlas"; in what passes for the mind of a god-idiot, a pretty picture is (literally} worth a thousand words, as their minds have never grown past the coloring-book level.

Mr. Yahya also "proved" that the Holocaust was a lie and that the world is run by a secret Judeo-Masonic society. He also campaigned (with success) to promote government censorship. He is a nationalist and a religious zealot. Most importantly he is a charlatan and probably makes a wonderful living by selling his ludicrous texts to people whose mental health problems have caused them to believe in the existence of a deity.

As to the original post, you can improve all three books in less than a minute. You can use their pages as toilet paper (they already contain crap), or if you have poor insulation you can tear them out and stuff the pages into the cracks around your doors and windows. They certainly contain a lot of pages.

Fatman, you forgot, he's not merely using his own thought. He relied on the experts' views in their respected scientific fields. Some are evolutionists themselves. You didn't even bother to read/know things or knowledge that contradicts your basis of comparison. That surely shows something. At least he dares to read and oppose the other side with his well-prepared arguments. Some could just throw insults.

http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/index.htm#

2. The only country that escaped NATO bombings while violating numerous international laws, practised apartheid unashamedly, repeatedly killing soldiering babies for tens of years (63 years), killing defenceless civilians glaringly and building a life like a leech on someone else's lands, blood and country is the so-called 'a secret Judeo-Masonic society' you thought had not existed. Libya, Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Soviet Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and countless more are immediately dealt with without any hesitations. Conspiracy, power flexing, natural selection or just mere chance?

Only Mossad can go on a killing spree anywhere on the face of this earth (besides predator drones), manipulating sovereign international passports while violating international laws without any worries. You have been sleeping all this while, haven't you? No wonder you have a very odd name.

Islamic empire collapse totally in 1918. The West took over. A thousand years of achievement in civilisation almost throughout the globe has since vanished. The influence in Science now shifted to the West after almost a thousand years in Muslim hands. Since then, the world was ridden with paper and plastic money, overwhelming debts just to make ends meet, deadly sexual diseases and never ending wars and death. Since then, people started to die like flies. The Japanese suffered a very highly scientific achievement that still threatens mankind with extinction and everyone is afraid of Islam. Everyone suffered scientific breakthrough in WMD. Dresden, Tokyo, My Lai, No Gun Ri, Fallujah and et cetera and et cetera. Trust me; the world won't disappear because of the said holy books. Ask the nuclear powers that have been stockpiling nuclear warheads and other WMDs enough for each, every one of us. Need I mention the remorseful scientists behind those scientific achievements?

God? Maybe Hawking’s words best describe Him, but he was referring to the Martians of course, 'we just need to look at ourselves in order to understand other life forms on other planet(s) we have yet to discover' or something like that. He was right in a way.

In knowing God, we just have to look at ourselves. We breathe the unseen air, colourless, odourless and tasteless. We breathe it in and out every second in our lives, taking it for granted. We see matters, some living, growing and building while others do not, and yet they exists around us and share some of our characteristics and yet we are totally different from them.

As creators ourselves, we would be annoyed if our creations are not treated rightfully, by others and especially by themselves. We wouldn't want our created complex and expensive cars, for example, to be bathing in the sea and running children down mercilessly on the road, while instigating other cars to do the same.

We would punish our complex cars ourselves for not appreciating our effort of creating them into existence in the first place and wasting themselves away in vain. We have given them the appropriate sensors to think, evaluate, re-think, try and error and make amends for them to grow, progress and benefiting one another. They shouldn't have taken our gift of existence to them for granted by disobeying and rebelling against us, their creators, the givers of everything they have and had. We would give them space and time to grow. We would warn them of course, the consequences of their treachery against us, their creators and sustainers. There, I used the 'talk to a 4-year-old' approach. Do you understand now, twillight?

@srizalsThat turkish Kent Hovind didn't relied anything but his own buttocks. I've checked some of his material embedded to youtube, and it is nothing but bullshit, unbased assumptions (= bullshit) and mentioning religious terms (=bullshit).So there is no "other side" to evolution.

Judaism has nothing to do with Freemasonry.Freemasonry was actually a "university for everyone" in an age where nothing better existed (and people got bored from the nonworking religion), and currently it is nothing else then a golfclub with funny clothes.And while many banker came from judaism, banking is just buissness. It is as much conspiracy as a condominium.

"Predator drones"? What's next, moles with pneumatic hammer? (Btw, have you heared about the recent assassination of Bin Laden by the USA? Oh yeah, I think Obama is a secretly transmutated israelite spy. I won't even try t tell the difference between israelites, jews and whatever the third word is in english for that topic.)

The islamic empires as you describe collapsed ca. 800-1200 CE, (around the end of the Dark Age, made by christianity) and the American and FarEastern empires florished independently from the European influence-area.Your other words are also pure bullshit.But know that everyone of course fear Islam (and other religions with the same dogma) for its holy war things.

So you say "martians" ARE a big HIM (they must be relatives os sponges then), and you call those absolutely normal, results of evolution beings "God"? Then I say thank you, end of the discussion.

As you say, twillight, as you say. If it makes you feel better. I hope you can see past the lies n hate. Hope you'll eventually be at peace, with yourself. You'll never be by hiding behind falsity, locking yourself in, afraid of comparing your truth with other truths. Which is the truest? That is the question, twillight. Compare and contrast. You'll get there, sooner or later, I hope.

As for the thousand years of glory that you have now, know this, you'll never take any of the glory in this world with you to your grave. We can only bring our good deeds with us to the grave. Hope you'll have offspring as your legacy on this fragile and dying earth. Good luck.